MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            9 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022201

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he did not understand the Chapter 10 instructions he received; that he was told that if he did not sign it he would receive a court-martial; and that he was not in the right frame of mind because he was suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which was diagnosed later.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 21 November 1968, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years in the rank of private first class/E-3.  At the time of this enlistment the applicant had already completed 2 years, 9 months, and 5 days of honorable active service; held military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer); completed a combat tour in Vietnam; and earned the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. 

Upon his reenlistment the applicant was assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia where he was promoted to the rank of specialist/E-4 on 4 September 1969.  His record for the period of enlistment under review documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, there is an extensive disciplinary history which includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and several AWOL related incidents of misconduct.

The applicant’s AWOL history began with his departing his unit without authority on 7 July 1969 and remaining away for 13 days until 19 July 1969.  He again went AWOL from 23 to 29 September 1969 which resulted in his accepting NJP. His punishment for this offense included a reduction in rank to private first class/E-3, suspended for 30 days, and a forfeiture of $30.00.

The applicant again went AWOL on 23 October 1969 and remained away for 
43 days until 4 December 1969.  On 29 December 1969 the applicant departed from his unit AWOL, he was dropped from the rolls as a deserter on 5 January 1970, and remained away for 895 days.  He returned to military control on 
10 June 1972.

The evidence of record contains a status report on the applicant, dated 
24 August 1970, which shows that he had been arrested by the Pascagoula, Mississippi Police on 13 January 1970 for armed robbery and was incarcerated in the Parchman, Mississippi State Penitentiary on 11 June 1970 to serve a 
5 year sentence.  

On 12 July 1972, the applicant was returned to military control at the Fort Benning, Georgia Personnel Control Facility (PCF) after being AWOL for three days from 9 to 11 July 1972.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  This document identifies that the applicant received an UD, under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. 

The DD Form 214 also shows that at the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 0 days of credible active service on his current enlistment, a total of 3 years 11 months, and 5 days of active military service, and that he had accrued 958 days of time lost due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the evidence of record that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD prior to his separation from active duty.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 429.  The Army used established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge. The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention, in effect, that PTSD contributed to his misconduct.  However, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service for the period of enlistment under review, the Board concluded this factor did not provide a basis for granting relief.  The Army used established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning events that led to the applicant’s discharge from the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___eo___  ___cjp___  ___inw__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022201	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/09/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/08/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.  807	A92.17	
3.  857	A93.23	
4.  863	A93.29	
5.		
6.